qt_list_processes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and the attachability filter, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no processes match, or any environmental prerequisites. The verb 'list' implies a non-destructive operation, providing some transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that leads with the verb 'List' and stays on point. Every word adds value, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the process list is filtered by attachability, but that is included. It misses a note about potential prerequisites, but for a listing tool this is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't contradict the empty input schema. There is no additional semantic information to add.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'running Qt processes' and a qualifier 'that may be attachable', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like qt_list_sessions or qt_attach. It immediately communicates what the tool returns and its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage in the process of attaching to Qt processes (by mentioning 'attachable'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or name alternative tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it relies on the agent to infer from the sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.